The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Unique Buildtech Eng. Pvt. Ltd.. on 1 October, 2015
13. From the above, it is apparent that the CIT(A) upheld the conclusion of
the Assessing Officer in the adjudication part wherein he concluded that "no
documentary proof of expenses to substantiate the claim was produced before
me to controvert findings of the Assessing Officer." We further observe that in
the last two sentences, the CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 10 lakh and
granted relief of Rs.31,90,024 to the assessee without pointing out any
calculation mistake or any other allegation against the action of the Assessing
Officer. Hence, we are inclined to hold that the CIT(A) granted relief to the
assessee without recording any factual findings and thus we are unable to draw
any conclusion about the correctness of impugned order. In this situation, we
cannot expect the appellant/revenue to show and establish that the factual
findings were incorrectly recorded by the first appellate authority. Hence, in our
humble understanding, the benefit of ratio of the order of Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in the case of CIT vs Surendra Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not available
for the assessee respondent.